dent should "with the advice and consent of the Senate" appoint ambassadors, ministers and consuls, and make treaties; but that, if a declaration of war was contemplated, only the concurrence of both houses of Congress could authorize such a declaration. The language of the Constitution was drawn with the greatest precision. It is a model of literary style. In it, there is no tautology, not even a wasted word, and when, therefore, the Constitution made necessary the "advice and consent of the Senate," something more than a mere ratification of an appointment or of a treaty was in contemplation. The word "advice"

clearly meant co-operation with the executive in an advisory capacity before a conclusion was reached and the nation, to some extent, morally committed.

It was the undoubted intention of the fathers to make the Senate the final treaty-making power, and, as such, to enable it, at any stage of the negotiations, either to propose a treaty, to express disapproval of treaties in contemplation, to determine the suitability of those who were appointed to negotiate a treaty, to advise with the President at any stage of the negotiations, and, finally, to consent to, or reject, or to amend, any tentative draft. The President was thus the agent of the Senate in negotiating a treaty; but, through usage, which may have some justification, he has been freely been freely given in practice the initiative to such an extent that precedent no longer requires him to discuss preliminarily with the Senate the terms of a treaty before he tentatively offers it to an

other nation. Nevertheless, some cooperation between the executive and Congress is necessary, lest an unseemly deadlock should arise to the embarrassment of the nation if it is called upon to reject that which was tentatively offered in its name by the execu tive and, to avoid this unfortunate result, it has been the practice of the executive for many years, in all important foreign questions, to consult with the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Senate, so that he could be reasonably satisfied that the Senate would ratify that which the executive offers to another nation in the name of America.

There are students of the Constitution who have held that in its development the Senate's function in the treaty-making power is little more than to ratify that which the executive has negotiated. The most forceful statement of this theory is found in President Wilson's "Constitutional Government in the United States," which reads as follows: "The President cannot conclude a treaty with a foreign power without the consent of the Senate, but he may guide every step of diplomacy; and to guide diplomacy is to determine what treaties must be made, if the faith and prestige of the government are to be maintained. He need disclose no step of a negotiation until it is complete; and, when in any critical matter it is completed, the government is virtually Whatever its disinclinacommitted. tion, the Senate may feel itself committed also." That this view cannot be correct and was not so intended is plainly shown by the fact that no

treaty can be entered into, unless twothirds of the Senate concur in its wisdom. To our fathers, the chief difference between a monarchy and a republic, was that in a republic the treatymaking power required the assent of representatives of all sections and parties. Hence the refusal to vest authority even in a majority of the Senate. Current events show that the Senate has not abdicated its great duty under the express language of the Con

stitution.

These are the six fundamental principles of the Constitution. It may be suggested that the challenge to these six fundamental principles is not a very serious one, and that no real concern need be felt as to their continued efficacy. This quite ignores the fact that there are important bodies of men, numbering hundreds of thousands of voters, who challenge some or all these principles. To avoid any reference to current politics, I will simply refer to the party platforms of the presidential campaign of 1912. One political party, which polled more than eight hundred thousand votes, advocated radical changes in the election of Senators by the legislatures, the abolition of the presidential veto power and of life tenure for judges, and favorably advocated not only the initiative and referendum and the recall, but also the government monopolization of every natural source of wealth and its ownership of all land whatsoever. Another party, which polled over four million votes, not only advocated "such alterations of the fundamental laws as shall insure the representative character" of the government, by adopting the initi

ative, referendum and recall, but it further advocated a "more easy and expeditious method of amending the federal Constitution." The matter can be referred to without any suggestion of partisanship, for in 1912, all the parties of America in different parts of the country, called into question one or more of the essential principles of the Constitution.

If they really meant

what they said, then the Constitution I would have been amended in essential details by an almost unanimous vote. "Can such things be, and overcome us as a summer cloud, without our special wonder?" Indeed, in the period from 1914 to 1917, seventy-nine amendments to the Constitution were proposed, relating to twenty-four different subjects, most of them being subversive of one or more of the principles of the Constitution.

I do not claim that the Constitution is a perfect instrument. The fathers themselves recognized their own fallibility or they would not have made provision for its amendment; but I do contend that its fundamental principles are eternal verities, and cannot be impaired or destroyed without reducing the noble fabric to a cureless ruin. Unless the present tendency to change the Constitution by amendment, interpretation or usage is checked by a sound public opinion, it will one day become a noble and splendid ruin like the Parthenon, but, like the Parthenon, useless for practical purposes and an object of melancholy interest. sadly true that Washington's supreme achievement is being slowly undermined by forces which, if not checked, will result in its subversion. Let all

It is

patriotic Americans on this, his birthday, take up the cry, "Save the Constitution!"

I have said that the Constitution rests upon public opinion. When that ceases to support it, the end will be at hand. While the scarcely veiled antagonism to its principles is serious, a graver aspect is the profound ignorance and indifference of even educated Americans with respect to America's greatest contribution to the science of government. Even in our higher institutions of learning, it is amazing how few of their graduates have a real knowledge of either the history or the provisions of the Constitution. They may know its most important provisions in a perfunctory way, as they know the rules of parliamentary law, but the profound political philosophy which brought it into being and the basic principles which underlie it, are not familiar to our college graduates. For my part, I would make it a rule in every college and university that no man shall graduate or receive a degree, no matter how elective the course may be or what specialty he is studying, unless he can pass a real examination with respect to the history and provisions of the federal Constitution.

The danger was never greater than in this hour, when in every country there is a revolt against accepted principles of government. Indeed, the future historian may say that the first quarter of the twentieth centutry was marked by a revolt against the past in all departments of human life. One can see this tendency in literature, art, music, sociology and political govern

ΤΗ

ΤΙ

ment. Everywhere there is a cra for innovation, everywhere hostili to that which has the sanction of t past. The time strikingly recalls t past. closing days of Washington's when, as he said: "The whole wo is in an uproar." He recognized th the problem of the statesmen was steer between the Scylla of anard and the Charybdis of autocracy. Th nation has spent its treasure like wa er, and, what is infinitely more, t blood of its gallant youth, to ma "the world safe for democracy.” task is accomplished; but, in t mighty reaction from the supreme e ertions of the war, it is now appare to thoughtful men that a new proble confronts mankind—and that is, make democracy safe for the worl Kaiserism has been haled to the bar civilization and has been convicte and sentence of execution pronounce And now the world is slowly percen ing that democracy is also on tria charged by its foes with unduly straining the will of the majority to i flict their will upon the inalienab rights of the individual, and, by friends, with inefficiency. In this p riod of popular fermentation, the en of which no man can predict, the Co stitution of the United States, with i fine equilibrium between efficient pow er and individual liberty, still remain the best hope of the world. should perish, the cause of true demo racy would receive a fatal wound at the best hopes of mankind would f irreparably disappointed.

If

These are "the times that try men souls." The situation is strikingly sin ilar to that April morning of 178

1

en Washington entered the city of iladelphia to gather about him a few thful adherents to restore law and ler. Can we do better than to imie his spirit? Shall we not raise the ndard that he then raised? Ought t men of all parties who love this untry, who believe in its past as well its future, and who revere Washton and have faith in his supreme nievement, the Constitution of the nited States, unite in the same spirit which he gave utterance at the beining of the great convention: "It too probable that no plan that we opose will be adopted. Perhaps anher dreadful conflict is to be susined. If, to please the people, we

offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and just can repair. The event is in the hand of God." I am speaking in the State which gave Abraham Lincoln to the nation and the ages. The Rebellion was in its last analysis a challenge to the authority of the Constitution. To save it Lincoln gave his heart's blood. Let us today take a high resolve to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, which Washington created and Lincoln saved. (An address delivered before the Union League Club of Chicago, February 22, 1919; reprinted by permission of the author.)

We are living in the greatest days that the modern world has seen. Our customary habits of thought and our ordinary personal and local interests have been pushed into the background by great events that have justly absorbed the attention of the entire civilized world. Old forms of government that have existed for fifteen hun

dred years have tumbled down in ruins before our eyes. Ruling dynasties which traced back their origin to Charlemagne have been driven from the places of power and authority that they have occupied for centuries. New nations are being born in our very presence, and peoples who cannot remember the time when they have not been held in bondage by an alien military power are standing erect and making ready to march forward to take their independent place in the family of free nations. There is turbulence not only in the world of events, but in the world of ideas. Loud and angry voices are raised on every hand, urging the overthrow of the foundations of society and of the marvelous civilization which it has taken three thousand years to build. Destruction is the order of the day. Crude thinking accompanies unconsidered and hysterical action. Force, either military, economic or political, and not reasonableness or justice, is everywhere appealed to as the arbiter of differences. It is probable that the world is now farther removed from peace and order than it

was on November 11 last, when hostilities ceased. In this orgy of crooked thinking and false use of language, words are twisted from their accustomed meanings and are used to mislead the public through being given wrong significations. It is the fashion to describe a doctrinaire as an idealist, to call a liberal a tory, and to steal the splendid term "libera!" to cover the nakedness of the revolutionist. It is high time to attempt to dissipate the fog in which we are living and to get back to first principles and to straight thinking along the lines of hard and practical common sense and human experience.

Nothing in the whole history of these last momentous years can have made more direct and more touching appeal to the imagination of an American than what happened a few months ago at Independence Hall in Philadelphia. In that simple and dignified room where the Continentai Congress met, where George Washington was chosen commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, and where the Declaration of Independence was adopted, the accredited representatives of no fewer than twelve of the oppressed and submerged nationalities of the earth assembled to make their own solemn declaration of common aims. In the very room in which the American nation was born these new nations of tomorrow made the public profession of